Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Petitioner has approached this Court inter-alia seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing selection and appointment of respondent No.5 to the post of Clerk in ESM (General) Category vide selection list dated 14.03.2018, Annexure P-6. Another prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the said post.

Vide advertisement No.10/2015 dated 24.11.2015, Annexure P-1, posts of Clerks were advertised for various Departments, Boards and Corporation. By a corrigendum, the numbers of posts were increased to 1 of 4 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:037697 CWP-4115-2019 -2- 2023:PHHC:037697 6134. Petitioner applied for the post in the category of Dependent of Ex- Servicemen (DESM) and appeared in the written examination, held in December, 2016. When the petitioner did not find his roll number in the result of the written examination, he approached this Court by filing CWP-24770-2017 claiming that he had scored higher marks in the ESM (General) category than the cut off marks. After notice, vide order dated 22.01.2018, Annexure P-5, writ petition was dismissed on the statement made by the counsel representing the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) that rights of DESM candidates are subservient to ESM candidates and as the petitioner has scored 134 marks in the written examination, post will be offered to him only if a vacancy remains after filling the vacancies of all the meritorious and eligible ESM candidates. It was further stated that till the time the position is not clear, petitioner's case has to be treated in the general category where the last candidate has scored 152 marks. Final result was declared by HSSC on 14.03.2018, Annexure P-6. Claiming that respondent No.5 had scored lesser marks than him, petitioner has approached this Court once again. Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by respondents No.2 and 3 by filing a short reply.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that despite the fact that score of respondent No.5, who is also an applicant under the DESM (General) category, is below that of the petitioner, he has been appointed as a Clerk by the Director General Health Services, Haryana, vide order dated 16.03.2018, Annexure P-7. It is his submission that the last selected candidate in the ESM (General) category has scored 118 marks out of 225 marks, including marks for interview, whereas the petitioner, who 2 of 4 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:037697 CWP-4115-2019 -3- 2023:PHHC:037697 has scored more marks, has been denied appointment. Counsel representing the respondents has referred to the short reply and contested the claim of the petitioner.

I have heard counsel for the parties and examined the paper- book with their able assistance.

Advertisement, Annexure P-1, provides for reservation for ESM/DESM and its relevant extract is as under:-

"The reservation for ESM will be utilized in the order given below:-
(i) Disabled ex-servicemen with disability between 20% to 50%.
(ii) Upto two dependents of Service personnel killed/disabled beyond 50%. 

                                  3 of 4

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:037697




CWP-4115-2019                             -4-              2023:PHHC:037697

It is therefore evident from the above that the rights of DESM candidates for appointment accrue only if there are any vacant or unfilled seats earmarked for ESM candidates. In the absence of any vacant slot, DESM candidates cannot stake their claim for appointment to the posts in the ESM category. The mere fact that the petitioner had scored more marks than the last selected candidate in the ESM (General) category, is not enough and the petitioner's claim for a appointment to the post in this category is unfounded.